Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You think that because there might have been a tiny minority who contradicted all the others, that this trumps not only the nearly unanimous statements of most other witnesses that day, including the nonvictims in the limo, but the fact that we see distinct, highly visible startle reactions following 285 and 313, that never occurred following the early shots.

Is that REALLY your position?

No.

It is not his position.

It is quite clear that he is asking you to support your claims (especially the one highlighted) with the majority you describe.

There were, after all, a considerable number of witnesses interviewed.

It seems his prediction was right. He has told you exactly how to convince him, you refuse to do so.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Prove *nobody* -- out of all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who testified to the Warren Commission or gave statements to the Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, or Sheriff's Office -- heard a shot at Zapruder frame 223 - allowing the time for the sound from the rifle to reach their ears. Of course you can't. And I'd be willing to wager you won't even try. It's a claim you can't support.

Challenged to prove this (that NO ONE heard a shot at Zapruder frame 223), Bob now retreats to claiming, well, a lot of people didn't:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You think that because there might have been a tiny minority who contradicted all the others, that this trumps not only the nearly unanimous statements of most other witnesses that day, including the nonvictims in the limo, but the fact that we see distinct, highly visible startle reactions following 285 and 313, that never occurred following the early shots. [emphasis in the original]

So we've gone from "No one heard the shot at 223" to an admission that "a tiny minority" of the witnesses might have heard a Z223 shot, and only "most other witnesses that day" didn't hear a shot at Z223. I'm going to wager that you won't bother to back up this new claim with specific evidence either. Can you provide any evidence to prove your claim?

Bob, you are also invoking three LOGICAL FALLACIES, by my count, in your latest response:

You misstate my point (straw man LOGICAL FALLACY)

You try to shift the burden of proof

You change the subject (red herring)

We're not supposed to notice, I guess, that you are changing my request for your evidence of your claim into a positive claim I did not make ("You think that...", and then into your request for me to disprove some other contentions of yours (about, of course, your ever-present "startle reactions").

Bob, LOGICAL FALLACIES are not persuasive, and in fact, reveal the depth of the issues with your arguments.

And your argument that witnesses can't remember back more than 7 years because their brain cells are replaced, sets an all new standard in craziness. When brain cells are replaced, the memory information is copied back into them, identical to the original.

Sigh. Another day, another straw man argument from Robert. Quote my point, and then, if you can, rebut my point. But don't pretend the above is anywhere close to what I said.

Having issued a straw man argument to dispose of my points, Robert simply then goes back to reiterating his own points once again:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Those witnesses were mutually corroborative. The only one who went with the intuitive explanation, that the bullet was recovered in surgery, was Bill Stinson. But even he corroborates the others, since the only way he could have come to that belief was, based on what that nurse said.

And Nolan confirmed that he was right there with him when it happened. So he had to have heard her describe a single, whole bullet.

That nurse couldn't have been Audrey Bell. Bell's own statements prove that beyond any doubt. And the notion that she just forgot that she placed four very tiny particles in that envelope is ridiculous.

Sorry, Bob. Your original argument was disposed of, as it's totally reliant on hearsay, decades later recollections, and decades later recollections of hearsay (a 49-year later recollection by one witness of what somebody else said was in an envelope. Really?). Numerous people, not just me, pointed out how you're ignoring science entirely in your arguments from these decades later recollections.

Simply misstating our points and reiterating your own is not going to ever be the best approach. Although I suppose you can keep trying, and see if it works the next time. Good luck with that.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You think that because there might have been a tiny minority who contradicted all the others, that this trumps not only the nearly unanimous statements of most other witnesses that day, including the nonvictims in the limo, but the fact that we see distinct, highly visible startle reactions following 285 and 313, that never occurred following the early shots.

Is that REALLY your position?

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

No.

Hehe, how many other alts do you have in this fight, Hank?

Quote:

It is not his position.

Then why did he say,

"Prove *nobody* -- out of all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who testified to the Warren Commission or gave statements to the Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, or Sheriff's Office -- heard a shot at Zapruder frame 223"?

He knew that I only argued that "most" of the witnesses never heard the 223 shot. So how could it have mattered to him that there was a tiny minority who contradicted the others, unless he wanted to argue that they constituted some kind of rebuttal?

Quote:

It is quite clear that he is asking you to support your claims (especially the one highlighted) with the majority you describe.

No it's not. What is quite clear is that he cannot to find an answer to the fact that only one of the early shots were audible.

Quote:

There were, after all, a considerable number of witnesses interviewed.

Yes there were, and the Warren Commission was acutely aware what each of them said about the spacing of the shots.This is what they concluded.

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

The witnesses only heard one of the early shots, and even that one was not loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see following the shots at 285 and 313.

Oswald could not possibly have fired all of them and Hank is helpless to refute that fact.

Alternative explanations have been provided which you have ignored or simply dismissed.

Let's review your "alternative explanations".

1. The large consensus of witnesses mistakenly thought the bullet striking the head was a separate gunshot. To "prove" this, you presented witnesses who specifically stated that they only heard ONE shot then. Then you produced false math, to evade the fact that the 313 shot and the head strike would have sounded virtually simultaneous to most of the witnesses.

2. There was no shot prior to 223, despite statements by Mrs. Kennedy, two secret service agents, and John Connally that they turned right in reaction to the first shot they heard - each of whom can be corroborated in the Zapruder film, reacting exactly as they described, prior to 223.

You also dismissed Rosemary Willis, who stated that she stopped running when she heard that shot, which is exactly what we see her doing, also, prior to 223.

Connally's statement that he head a single shot, and was then hit by a second, silent shot, matches perfectly with the vast majority of other witnesses, including the other limo passengers.

And I am STILL waiting for you to show me reactions prior to 285, which were similar to the reactions following 285 and 313. When do you intend to do that?

That accusation requires you to believe that my premise was false or unproven. Do you actually dispute that most of the witnesses heard exactly what I claimed? The WC concluded,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

If so, please explain your disagreement.

If not, then why would you pretend that my assertion was false or unproven?

It is possible that you only said that because you know that an honest answer would prove that Oswald didn't act alone?

All very good points. I believe that one of the reasons that the conspiracy theorists focus so much on witness statements is that it gives them more material to misinterpret. Given the limits of human memory, if a witness gives multiple statements, especially statements separated by years or decades, they're going to have conflicts. Notice how Harris won't use Connally's testimony to the Warren Commission or his testimony to the HSCA to try and support his "four magic bullets" theory, but only Connally's hearsay statement to his ghost writer thirty years after the fact. Conspiracy theorists only accept statements that can be made to support their particular theory. If Connally had testified before the Warren Commission that he remembered a bullet being picked up off the floor but later changed his story thirty years later to claim it hadn't happened, does anyone have any doubts as to which version that Robert would accept?

Every new investigation gives them more statements to take out of context, and more witnesses with false memories to quote, and more crazies with stories to quote. That's why, in my view, every 15-20 years, we start to get calls for yet another investigation, because they've pretty much beat the old material to death, and there's only so many ways you can misstate the conclusions of the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

Originally Posted by cmikes

One thing about Mark Lane, however. I've always, perhaps foolishly, been inclined to cut him a little slack over Rush to Judgement. It's clear that he approached the whole case as a defense attorney from the start and defense attorneys aren't interested in the truth, especially when their clients are guilty as sin. It's clear, though, that he should have made more open in his book that it was written strictly as a defense of Oswald and not as any attempt to find historical fact. Which is a good thing, because Lane wouldn't know a historical fact if it bit him on the ass.

That is a good summation of Lane's book. It's so replete with lies of omission and commission that even a bit of cursory research into his claims will shock the reader. Where the evidence doesn't support him, he simply lies about it.

For one tiny example, he takes the report of one witness, Nolan Potter, who said, as quoted in an FBI statement:

Quote:

POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees. POTTER said there were people running in every direction and he noticed a police man drive his motorcycle up the slope towards the Texas School Book Depository Building. POTTER said he could not determine from which direction the shots were fired...

Another person on the overpass also said that he saw smoke, but the FBI report of that interview is so vague that it is difficult to determine precisely where he placed the smoke. According to the report, a motorcycle patrolman was headed 'up the slope' and the witness located the smoke in that area. The patrolman was headed for the fenced in area on the grassy knoll, and did, in fact, run up the incline and into the railroad yards. One might deduce, therefore, that it was there, near the fence, that the witness observed the smoke.

Lane's book is still cited by many people as convincing them of a conspiracy and of the inadequacy of the Warren Commission conclusions. But his book is filled with false claims like the above.

Not only have I proven the premise of my question to, but I think you've known this to be a fact for as long as I have, possibly longer.

And even if you still claim to believe there was only a single, early shot, if it came from Oswald, it would have generated a 130 decibel sound at street level, which is 16 times greater than 90db, the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur, as well as permanent hearing loss with extended exposure.

So instead of making up excuses, why don't you just answer the question Hank?

Why do we see smiling faces instead of people screaming and diving to the ground, as they did following 285 and 313?

The jacket snapped immediately back because his right arm was resting on it and holding it taut, when he was hit. Also notice in this brief segment, that JFK's hands began to rise at 225, while Connally begins a series of contortions which clearly demonstrate that he has been hit.

The shot at 223 is a certainty, almost as certain as the one at 285:-)

Quote:

We have evidence for the three from LHO.

Yes, you have the three shells found in the depository. But this creates a contradiction with far more compelling evidence that the early shots were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end, and that only one of them was even audible.

There are other explanations for how the shells got to where they were, but there are no other explanations for the evidence that other snipers were involved in the attack.

Quote:

No evidence for any other shots

Nonsense. I have presented evidence by the truckload. Post a convincing rebuttal of this article. If you can do that, then you will have earned the right to claim that I have presented no evidence.

[Hearsay] is a legal concept and has no actual meaning outside of a courtroom setting.

Thank you -- point well taken. There are, of course, informal dictionary definitions of hearsay, but they don't apply to HSienzant's treatment of the statements attributed to Connally. That treatment is better described by your description of historiography.

Quote:

Secondary sources start to become very problematic. One must first account for all of the problems of perception and memory of the primary source and then add into it all of the problems of perception (did our reporter hear right) and memory (does he remember what was said) of the source. Added to that are the biases of the reporter.

And there we are. Connally, among others, famously maintained beliefs regarding the assassination that remained at odds with other witness statements and incompatible with other evidence. Naturally we would expect his autobiography to reflect his particular perspective. It's his story, not the story. For any such witness we can shove all the documentary evidence there is in his face and say, "But you're wrong!" and he can honestly and forthrightly respond, "Nevertheless, that's is how I remember it." This is why, when the truth matters, we empanel twelve good persons and true to decide, in a most reasonably fashion, what among all the misremembered and fragmentary accounts is most likely to have happened. It may not be the truth in a philosophically absolute way, but it's the best we can be expected to do.

Now enter the ghost author. Well, actually, just the author -- a true ghost author remains anonymous. It doesn't matter how good a reputation that author has for accuracy and honesty. Every writer inevitably leaves his mark. I don't want to derail the thread toward a lengthy treatise on shadow authorship. You said it well enough yourself. But the key fact here is no so much that another author has interposed himself, but that in contrast to that secondary authority we have two sworn statements from the primary participant. In the purely documentary sense those should be presumed to have the most authority.

But in a more nuanced way, we have to consider other hypotheses. Even granting that the autobiography accurately represents a statement from Connally, we have to consider things like whether Connally himself considered it a belief too tenuous to swear to but worth mentioning to his biographer.

That touches in part on why I understand hearsay (the legal concept) isn't admissible as a rule. Tom can testify in court to what Dick said he saw Harry do. And Harry can cross-examine Tom as to the accuracy of his hearing and the circumstances of Dick's statement. But only Dick can testify to what he meant by it, and whether that statement itself is based on true knowledge, expertise, or whatever. Dick's absence from the court violates Harry's right to confront and test the evidence against him.

Because the key statement attributed to Connally appears only in a secondary source, we consider it of somewhat lesser authority simply because the interposition creates an inherent ambiguity. Connally is no longer around to confirm the accuracy. But also because sworn testimony from Connally exists -- twice -- and famously omits that salient element, we lower the credibility of the outlying attributed quote. Not every historiographic dilemma has the luxury of repeated sworn statements as primary sources.

For you to believe that my premise was false, you must believe that there are no happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo which was snapped at the equivalent of Zapruder frame, 255.

Or he could be referring to the other premise you beg in that question.

Quote:

[i]t would have generated a 130 decibel sound at street level...

Asked and answered. You simply refer to a single HSCA exhibit as if it supported every single quantitative belief you have about gunshots. I asked you some simple questions about the physics involved, and you were unwilling to answer them or even use the proper terminology in your evasion. Nor were you willing to discuss my counterexample.

The HSCA exhibit and the attending expert testimony was directed at whether differential barometry could be used to localize a gunshot with respect to a sensor. It is a geometry argument. You have misapplied the barometry discussion to support a different quantitative claim not contained in the discussion and not supported by any computation you are willing or able to provide. Therefore I concluded you have employed a sort of cargo-cult reasoning to arrive at your belief, Sadly this reasoning supplies the anchor premise to nearly your entire argument.

I grant you that many of your critics have misunderstood your argument, wrongly conflating the muzzle blast with the projectile shockwave in a way you do not. However, it doesn't aid your credibility to ignore those whose rebuttals are on point. It smacks of you simpy trying to win rhetorical points.

Further, as I pointed out above, the authors whose work you rely upon for the psychology portion of your argument were alive and active in the early 1960s and were available to the Warren Commission. Do you have any explanation for why their expertise did not seem applicable to the analysis of the photographic evidence that took place at the time?

The thing is that in the Zapruder film, Connally is seen looking over his shoulder after the first shot is fired.

He doesn't remember hearing the second shot because Oswald's bullet was supersonic (that means faster than the speed of sound), and by the time the shot was audible his body had three new painful holes in it. He certainly heard it, but doesn't recall hearing it due to his body going into shock.

And that's the key: Shock, the medical not emotional definition.

Shock is why Connally is an unreliable witness.

Again, it doesn't matter what Connally or anyone in the limo saw or heard. The physical evidence lead to Lee Harvey Oswald and stopped with him.

His rifle, his bullets, his place of employment.
He fled the scene, killed a cop, almost shot a second cop during his arrest.
His rifle he used to attempt to kill General Walker with same bullets used on JFK.
Same rifle he was seen with at gun range on multiple occasions were the other shooters complemented him on his accuracy at 200 yards, and his speed in cycling the bolt on his "Italian Rifle".
The same rifle he was photographed holding - twice. (Same photo he signed when he gave it to a friend).

Finally, you can't just make a silencer. This is one of the big silencer myths, that all you need is an oil can or a muffler and somehow it will magically work well enough to hit something. In 1963, it would have been much harder.

I need to point out again that no marksman, sharpshooter, or qualified gun-bunny would have used a silencer on a live and important target. If your job is to kill, the fewer variables in the process the better, and a silencer in 1963 was a huge variable.

Example: The Phoenix AZ highway shooter currently at large.

Nobody can find him ( or them) because he uses cover and distance to obscure himself (or themselves).

Thank you -- point well taken. There are, of course, informal dictionary definitions of hearsay, but they don't apply to HSienzant's treatment of the statements attributed to Connally.

Nonsense. He asserted that we can't trust Connally's own autobiography because it was "hearsay".

And he asserted that we can't trust the Dallas Morning News, because their interview of district attorney Wade, was "hearsay".

Quote:

And there we are. Connally, among others, famously maintained beliefs regarding the assassination that remained at odds with other witness statements and incompatible with other evidence.

Connally's statements were fully consistent with the vast majority of witnesses that day. They were nearly unanimous that they only heard one of the early shots, just like him. He did contradict that large consensus, hearing only one of the the final shots, but the man was about to lose consciousness. It's hard to blame him for that.

Your statement that his testimony was incompatible with other evidence, is flatly untrue. There is no such evidence.

Quote:

Naturally we would expect his autobiography to reflect his particular perspective.

Weasel words are not necessary. Connally did not lie. His narrative was confirmed by district attorney Wade, who encountered that same nurse, who was holding the bullet she recovered, in her hand. She told him that it came from Connally's gurney.

Officer Nolan corroborated Connally again, as well as Wade. He heard exactly the same thing.

Parkland supervisor Bell, piled on one more corroboration, confirming that she couldn't possibly have been the nurse who gave that whole bullet to Nolan.

The witnesses were unanimous and 100% consistent with one another.

Quote:

It's his story, not the story.

It's his story and Wade's story and Nolan's story and the story of the nurse who recovered the bullet. That makes it OUR story, despite all these ridiculous attempts at denial.

[quote]For any such witness we can shove all the documentary evidence there is in his face and say, "But you're wrong!"[quote]

What documentary evidence??

Oh I know! You can't produce any evidence because then you would be playing my "game" AKA excuse #63

Quote:

and he can honestly and forthrightly respond, "Nevertheless, that's is how I remember it."

That's also how the nurse remembered it, isn't it Jay:-)

And how Nolan and Wade remembered it.

What is your excuse for their statements?

Quote:

This is why, when the truth matters, we empanel twelve good persons and true to decide, in a most reasonably fashion, what among all the misremembered and fragmentary accounts is most likely to have happened.

That's a nonsensical argument. We take the evidence as it comes. I would go a step further and hook Connally, Nolan, Wade, Stinson and Bell into a polygraph and see if they were lying, but we just can't do that. And in reality, there is no reason why we should. They were mutually corroborative - 100% consistent with one another.

They told the truth, no matter how desperately you guys want to deny it.

As for your regurgitation of Hank's totally unsupported assertion that Herskowitz lied, I'm afraid that Wade, Nolan and the nurse they encountered, unanimously laid your ugly accusation to rest.

Believing that Wade and Nolan coincidentally suffered identical delusions which just happened to match perfectly with a detailed lie on the part of this highly respected author, is beyond idiotic. I honestly cannot remember any of the worst conspiracy theories which were that implausible.

BOTH men stated that the nurse described a whole bullet, which came from Connally's "gurney".

And don't you think that Nolan would have noticed that on the front of the envelope in large letters the contents were described as "bullet fragments" from Connally's "right arm", if that envelope was from Audrey Bell?

"Prove *nobody* -- out of all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who testified to the Warren Commission or gave statements to the Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, or Sheriff's Office -- heard a shot at Zapruder frame 223"?

Because I wanted to expose your claim as false, which is done, because you've retreated from it.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

He knew that I only argued that "most" of the witnesses never heard the 223 shot.

Sorry, no. You argued that NONE of the witnesses heard a 223 shot:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

No one heard the shot at 223, so it COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE. [emphasis added]

You've since backtracked from that position after I challenged you to support it, but that WAS your original assertion.

Hank

PS: We're still waiting for you to support your new, revised position, that a "the nearly unanimous statements of most other witnesses" was they heard no shot at Z223. Good luck trying to establish that.

Why do we see numerous, happy smiling faces in the Altgens photo, snapped at frame 255, if two 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots have already been fired?

You replied,

"Loaded question."

For you to believe that my premise was false, you must believe that there are no happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo which was snapped at the equivalent of Zapruder frame, 255.

Or, alternately, that there were not "two 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots before frame Z255" as you imbedded in your question, making it a loaded question. It's more than a little amusing that you don't apparently don't even see the way you've loaded these questions of yours.

That accusation requires you to believe that my premise was false or unproven. Do you actually dispute that most of the witnesses heard exactly what I claimed? The WC concluded,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

If so, please explain your disagreement.

If not, then why would you pretend that my assertion was false or unproven?

It is possible that you only said that because you know that an honest answer would prove that Oswald didn't act alone?

You resort to ad hominem at the end there, Bob. Another LOGICAL FALLACY by you. You might want to work on that.

Your unproven point imbedded in the question is that there were two early shots, only one of which was silent, but that is not proven by you. And the quotes from the Warren Commission don't help you any. None of what you quoted references two early shots. And in fact, it references only one early shot and two later ones. You don't get to assume a silent shot to establish four shots, but everyone can see that's exactly what you're doing.

This is why, when the truth matters, we empanel twelve good persons and true to decide, in a most reasonably fashion, what among all the misremembered and fragmentary accounts is most likely to have happened.

That's a nonsensical argument. We take the evidence as it comes. I would go a step further and hook Connally, Nolan, Wade, Stinson and Bell into a polygraph and see if they were lying, but we just can't do that. And in reality, there is no reason why we should.

Jay was describing how evidence is evaluated in a court of law, a procedure that is far from nonsensical, as I hope you will agree.

There's no reason why we would even want to subject those three people to a polygraph test, even if a polygraph test could ever conclusively prove anything, as you seem to mistakenly believe. No one is accusing anyone of lying, as we have been at pains to point out.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Hank, I recently ask you,

Why was it that most witnesses only heard one of the early shots?

You replied,

"Loaded question."

That accusation requires you to believe that my premise was false or unproven. Do you actually dispute that most of the witnesses heard exactly what I claimed? The WC concluded,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

If so, please explain your disagreement.

If not, then why would you pretend that my assertion was false or unproven?

It is possible that you only said that because you know that an honest answer would prove that Oswald didn't act alone?

Originally Posted by HSienzant

You resort to ad hominem at the end there, Bob. Another LOGICAL FALLACY.

You are begging the question, trying to make it appear that my allegation was untrue, when the simple fact that you continue to evade the issue, proves that it was.

You know very well, that you bailed out of our discussion on your "single early shot" theory, after it was fully refuted. I cited 5 people who reacted to that first audible shot and proved that they reacted exactly as they described, prior to 223. That included John Connally, who testified that after he heard that shot, he "felt" the next one, but never heard it.

You can't continue to hide behind arguments that you have given up on, Hank. Or would you prefer to try to resurrect your theory that is rejected even by your friends around here, as well as every other person on the planet.

So answer the question. If your reply is that the reason they only heard one early shot, is that there was only one, then just say it.

[quote=HSienzant;10872343]Or, alternately, that there were not "two 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots before frame Z255" as you imbedded in your question, making it a loaded question.

I have never seen anything quite this pathetic before. You deliberately snipped this part of my post in your response, just so that you could make up another phony excuse.

And even if you still claim to believe there was only a single, early shot, if it came from Oswald, it would have generated a 130 decibel sound at street level, which is 16 times greater than 90db, the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur, as well as permanent hearing loss with extended exposure.

In addition to the fact that your "single early shot" theory has been thoroughly demolished, I specifically offered you the option of factoring that into your answer.

The thing is that in the Zapruder film, Connally is seen looking over his shoulder after the first shot is fired.

He doesn't remember hearing the second shot because Oswald's bullet was supersonic (that means faster than the speed of sound), and by the time the shot was audible his body had three new painful holes in it. He certainly heard it, but doesn't recall hearing it due to his body going into shock.

He stated that the bullet strike felt like somebody punched him in the back. There was no reason why he wouldn't have heard that shot.

Consider the fact that Nellie didn't hear it either. She heard one shot, looked back at JFK at 258 and after that, heard the "second shot" which she thought, wounded her husband. We can easily see her react to that shot as she described in her WC testimony.

For you to believe that my premise was false, you must believe that there are no happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo which was snapped at the equivalent of Zapruder frame, 255.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Or he could be referring to the other premise you beg in that question.

I'm getting tired of these transparent attempts to dodge the issues.

Lot's of people were smiling in the Altgens photo after at least two shots were fired. And even if it had been one, that shot would have been excruciatingly loud, if it had come from Oswald's rifle.

None of the limo passengers exhibited startle reactions to the early shots, even remotely similar to their reactions following 285 and 313, and none of the other bystanders were screaming, diving to the ground, shielding their children, etc, as they did, following the unsuppressed rifle shots at the end.

The bullet discovered by Daryl Tomlinson was flown in to the FBI labs that evening and received at about 7:30 PM EST. It was labeled as Q1.

Of course, the FBI had to have been eager to determine whether it was fired from Oswald's rifle, which they had not yet received. They did however, acquire bullet fragments that were found in the limousine by 11:50 PM. Those fragments, Q2 and Q3, were later described in WC testimony, to have been large enough to confirm that they were a match with Oswald' rifle and CE399.

Of course, there is no way to confirm that they were the same fragments that originally came from the limo, but there is no doubt that what the feds received on 11/22 were the real thing. This is from FBI supervisor Robert Frazier's notes.

The FBI lab people, who were up all night, undoubtedly checked to see if the fragments matched with Tomlinson's bullet. What happened next, demonstrates that they probably didn't break out the champaign:-)

This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.

Of course, if they had a match, the FBI would have been shouting it from the rooftops. There would have been no need to tell Tomlinson to "keep your mouth shut".

That was a dubious solution to their problem, however, since Tomlinson's supervisor, O.P. Wright was also aware of that bullet, as were members of the Secret Service.

Enter plan B.

After receiving Oswald's rifle, they only needed to fire a round into water or cotton wading, to produce a substitute for that inconvenient bullet. Of course, the four men who originally handled the original, refused to verify the substitute, and none of the initials of the men who marked the bullet would ever be seen again.

It is compelling that one of the men who would not corroborate CE399, was Secret Service agent, Richard Johnsen. Before he died, Johnsen told Clint Hill that he did indeed, mark that bullet, which is hardly surprising, since he was required to do so.

Obvously, if he had seen his initials on CE399, he would have had no problem, signing off on it. His refusal to do so, confirms the fact that they were nowhere to be found on CE399.

Tomlinson originally stated that the bullet he found, came from a stretcher that was not Connally's. He was pressured to change his story, but what could he have said, after being told that the bullet he found was a perfect match with Oswald's rifle?

The bullet he discovered could not have been the one that hit Connally. That bullet was recovered on the second floor by a nurse and passed on to officer Bobby Nolan. Perhaps it was from another patient who had nothing to do with the assassination or it might have come from JFK's stretcher.

That fact matches perfectly with another proven fact, which is that the 223 shot which hit Connally and probably JFK was not heard by most (if not all) of the witnesses. It couldn't possibly have come from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.

Hank, you don't have to call all these Parkland witnesses liars or delusional anymore. Let me help you out with a better argument. Look at CE-842, a WC photo of the envelope and wrist fragments that Audrey Bell, according to the FBI, filled out and gave to officer Nolan.

Now look toward the right-bottom of the envelope. Do you see the upside-down "BMN"? BMN are Bobby Nolan's initials. In fact, I sent him a printout of this exhibit and he said that the letters looked like his writing.

Unfortunately, there are a few problems. Keep in mind that Bell was processing the most important evidence she had ever seen in her life. Do you suppose she would have used a fresh, clean envelope or one that was laying in a waste basket and required her to erase a lot of old data? Let's take a closer look.

I have encircled some of the partially erased, broken character fragments, obviously, from previous data, as well as a multitude of other partially erased characters. Look at all the partial characters that were overwritten by both Nolan's and Fritz's initials.

Also notice the absence of Bell's initials, in spite of her claim that she wrote them, as she was required to do in literally hundreds of other criminal cases. To fail to do that, would have broken the chain of custody and could have cost her her job.

And Bell was no rookie. She was the nursing supervisor of the entire ER of the largest hospital in Dallas. She got her RN in 1946.

Last question. Look at the four tiny fragments in the plastic container. Bell said she processed them herself and placed them in the envelope. Do you REALLY think that just minutes later, she forgot what was in the envelope and told the Dallas DA, one police officer and undoubtedly, Bill Stinson, that it held a single, whole bullet?

Oh, almost forgot. Yes, I think Nolan's initials were forged - a trivial task, dealing with three capital letters. With a little practice you or I could have done it as well as they did.

I believe that humans often do they best they can with the tools available at any given time or place, and the fact that this incident involved the assassination of the POTUS made the probability of the individuals involved cutting corners or making mistakes more likely than not.

The assertion that individuals involved on the investigation side of this question are immune from error (or relieved from incompetence or poor training) due to the gravity of the situation is not based in known human behavior, and for a guy to base his theory on an assertion of human behavior on one side and simultaneously ignore known human behavior on the other doesn't speak well of the theory.

No, there are other premises built into the question that you apparently don't even see anymore. You've blinded yourself to your own assumptions.

With each succeeding excuse, I keep thinking that they can't get any more ridiculous, but you continue to surprise me.

It appears, Bob, that you missed Hank's explanation, very patiently provided, of what the other assumptions are that make your question a loaded one.

Otherwise, I don't see why you would simply go on and repeat that very same loaded question.

Hank said that one such assumption is that "there were shots at Z285 and Z313." He goes on to point out that "the one at Z285 is unproven," yet it is embedded as fact in your question.

That's not all. Hank says that you also assume "that there were at least four shots. That too is unproven, but the question assumes two early shots and two later ones. That makes it a loaded question as well."

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Are you actually claiming that you can't answer the question because I believe there was a shot at 285???

We both know why you refuse to answer me.

He did answer you...

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Answer the question, Hank.

Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

He essentially said that your loaded question cannot be answered on its own terms; that is the nature of a loaded question.

As there is no proof that the limo passengers were exhibiting startle reactions to a single stimulus, let alone the specific stimulus you allege, at either of those points in the Zapruder film, there is therefore nothing that requires explaining in the perceived absence of such supposed "reactions" at any other point in the Zapruder film.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Hank, I recently ask you,

Why was it that most witnesses only heard one of the early shots?

You replied,

"Loaded question."

That accusation requires you to believe that my premise was false or unproven. Do you actually dispute that most of the witnesses heard exactly what I claimed?

Ha. Well, certainly no witness said, "I didn't hear one of the shots—you know, the one that didn't hit anybody or anything."

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The WC concluded,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot...

Singular.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

If so, please explain your disagreement.

Bob, Hank already did.
"Your unproven point imbedded in the question is that there were two early shots, only one of which was silent, but that is not proven by you." Etc.

Bob, nobody has accused you of not being sincere in your convictions. I don't know why you can't extend others the same courtesy.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the discussion.

Hank refused to answer my question about why most of the witnesses only heard one of the early shots, by claiming it was "loaded", suggesting that I had not refuted his "theory" that there was no shot prior to 223.

But he knew very well, that his theory was refuted, because I cited a multitude of witnesses who described their reactions to the first shot that they heard. And each of those reactions can be identified in the Zapruder film, taking place prior to 223.

Much of that refutation is contained in post #89.

In post #133, I linked to a Zapruder segment which proves that John Connally also turned to his right, exactly as he said he did, in reaction to the shot circa 150-160. Like all the others, his turn was prior to 223.

After that, and to his credit, he dropped the issue.

I questioned his honesty, because I think he evaded my question by hiding behind a theory that he no longer believes.

If I am wrong, then perhaps, Hank would like to continue our discussion and address the facts I presented.

I believe that humans often do they best they can with the tools available at any given time or place, and the fact that this incident involved the assassination of the POTUS made the probability of the individuals involved cutting corners or making mistakes more likely than not.

The assertion that individuals involved on the investigation side of this question are immune from error (or relieved from incompetence or poor training) due to the gravity of the situation is not based in known human behavior, and for a guy to base his theory on an assertion of human behavior on one side and simultaneously ignore known human behavior on the other doesn't speak well of the theory.

I don't think the fact that information was erased and over-written, suggests that this was an error. Look at the large, smudged area at the very bottom of the envelope.

And what happened to Bell's initials?

Another dealbreaker is the FBI's claim that when they interviewed Bell on the morning of 11/23/63, she told them that she placed a single fragment in an envelope which she gave to officer Nolan.

As we already know, in her ARRB testimony, Bell flatly denied their claim that she gave the fragments to Nolan, stating that she gave them to plain-clothed agents with the FBI or Secret Service.

It was roughly 20 years earlier, that the HSCA asked her the same question.

G: All right, and after you placed them into the foreign body envelope and sealed that envelope, what did you do with it?

B: I delivered them to the FBI, and he signed for them..

It is also interesting, that Bell stated that she had one of the agents sign off on a separate paper, confirming that he received the fragments. She delivered that paper to hospital administrator, Jack Price. This is from the ARRB report on her:

She independently recalled filling out a receipt on 1l/22/63 for the fragments, on half-page sized paper with red lettering in the letterhead, which was signed for by one of two men in civilian clothes (whom she thought were Federal agents) who accepted the fragments. She said she personally delivered the original of this receipt to Parkland Hospital Administrator Jack Price. (ARRB staff promised to try to locate this document, and promised that if located, we would mail her a photocopy
for verification purposes.)

But that document, which had to have been confiscated by the FBI, was nowhere to be found - in the archives or anywhere else. I have no idea whose name was on it, but there is no doubt about whose wasn't:-)

These were not mistakes.

PLEASE read the article in it's entirety - also the extremely important articles by John Hunt. There is much more to this.